Abstract
Laboratories play a crucial role in the education of future scientists and engineers, yet there is disagreement among science and engineering educators about whether and which types of technology-enabled labs should be used. This debate could be advanced by large-scale randomized studies addressing the critical issue of whether remotely operated or simulation-based labs are as effective as the traditional hands-on lab format. The present article describes the results of a large-scale (N = 306) study comparing learning outcomes and student preferences for several different lab formats in an undergraduate engineering course. The lab formats that were evaluated included traditional hands-on labs, remotely operated labs, and simulations. Learning outcomes were assessed by a test of the specific concepts taught in each lab. These knowledge scores were as high or higher (depending on topic) after performing remote and simulated laboratories versus performing hands-on laboratories. In their responses to survey items, many students saw advantages to technology-enabled lab formats in terms of such attributes as convenience and reliability, but still expressed preference for hands-on labs. Also, differences in lab formats led to changes in group functions across the plan-experiment-analyze process: For example, students did less face-to-face work when engaged in remote or simulated laboratories, as opposed to hands-on laboratories.
- Abet. 2005. Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Criteria%20and%20PP/05-06-EAC%20Criteria.pdf.Google Scholar
- Albu, M. M., Holbert, K. E., Heydt, G. T., Grigorescu, S. D., and Trusca, V. 2004. Embedding remote experimentation in power engineering education. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 19, 1, 139--143.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Amigud, Y., Archer, G., Smith, J., Szymanski, M., and Servatius, B. 2002. Assessing the quality of web-enabled laboratories in undergraduate education. In Proceedings of the 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (Boston, MA), 12--16.Google Scholar
- Arpaia, P., Baccigalupi, A., Cennamo, F., and Daponte, P. 2000. A measurement laboratory on geographic network for remote test experiments. IEEE Trans. Instrumen. Measur. 49, 5, 992--997. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Boroni, C. M., Goosey, F. W., Grinder, M., Ross, R. J., and Wissenbach, P. 1997. WebLab! A universal and interactive teaching, learning, and laboratory environment for the World Wide Web. In Proceedings of the 28th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. (San Jose, CA, Mar.), 199--203. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bradner, E. and Mark, G. 2002. Why distance matters: Effects on cooperation, persuasion and deception. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Nov.), 226--235. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., and Williams, S. M. 1990. Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In Cognition, Education and Multimedia, D. Nix and R. Sprio; eds., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. 115--141.Google Scholar
- Brown, A. L. 1989. Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Canizares, C. A. and Faur, Z. T. 1997. Advantages and disadvantages of using various computer tools in electrical engineering courses. IEEE Trans. Edu. 40, 3, 166--171. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Corter, J. E., Nickerson, J. V., Esche, S. K., and Chassapis, C. 2004. Remote vs. hands-on labs: Immersion, learning modes, and student preferences. Frontiers Edu. 17--21.Google Scholar
- Cummings, J. and Kiesler, S. 2005. Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Soc. Studies Sci. 35, 703--722.Google ScholarCross Ref
- del Alamo, J. A., Chang, V., Brooks, L., Mclean, C., Hardison, J., Mishuris, G., and Hui, L. 2003. MIT microelectronics weblab. In Lab on the Web : Running Real Electronics Experiments via the Internet, T. A. Fjeldly and M. S. Shur, Eds. John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. 49--88.Google Scholar
- Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., and Pea, R. D. 1999. Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. J. Learn. Sci. 8, 3-4, 391--450.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., and Harman, H. H. 1976. Manual for Kit of Factor Referenced Cognitive Tests. Educational Testing, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
- Esche, S. K. 2004. Remote dynamical systems laboratory website. http://dynamics.soe.stevens-tech.edu/.Google Scholar
- Esche, S. K. 2005. On the integration of remote experimentation into undergraduate laboratories---Technical implementation. Int. J. Instruct. Media 32, 4.Google Scholar
- Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C., Nazalewicz, J. W., and Hromin, D. J. 2003. An architecture for multi-user remote laboratories. World Trans. Eng. Technol. Edu. 2, 1, 7--11.Google Scholar
- Finn, H., Maxwell, M., and Calver, M. 2002. Why does experimentation matter in teaching ecology? J. Biol. Edu. 36, 4, 158--164.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Foster, I., Insley, J., Von-Laszewski, G., Kesselman, C., and Thiebaux, M. 1999. Distance visualization: Data exploration on the grid. IEEE Comput. 32, 12, 36--43. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Freedman, M. P. 1997. Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science, and achievement in science knowledge. J. Res. Sci.Teach. 34, 4, 343--357.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gillet, D., Salzmann, C., Latchman, H. A., and Crisalle, O. D. 2000. Recent advances in remote experimentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE American Control Conference, (Jun. 28--30), 2955--2956.Google Scholar
- Goldberg, A. 1984. Smalltalk-80: The Interactive Programming Environment. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hays, W. L. 1973. Statistics for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
- Hegarty, E. H. 1978. Levels of scientific inquiry in university science laboratory classes: Implications for curriculum deliberations. Res. Sci. Edu. 8, 45--57.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Henry, J. 2000. 24 hours, 7 days lab experiments access on the web all the time. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition (St. Louis, MO), 1--8.Google Scholar
- Heyman, G. D. and Dweck, C. S. 1992. Acheivement goals and intrinsic motivation: Their relation and their role in adaptive motivation. Motivation and Emotion 16, 3, 231--247.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hofstein, A. and Lunetta, V. N. 2004. The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Sci. Edu. 88, 1, 28--54.Google Scholar
- Hofstein, A. and Lunetta, V. 1982. The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Rev. Edu. Res. 52, 201--218.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hoyer, H., Jochheim, A., Rohrig, C., and Bischoff, A. 2004. A multiuser virtual-reality environment for a tele-operated laboratory. IEEE Trans. Edu. 47, 1, 121--126. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. 1999. Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
- Karan, V., Kerr, D. S., Murthy, U. S., and Vinze, A. S. 1996. Information technology support for collaborative decision making in auditing: An experimental investigation. Dec. Support Syst. 16, 3, 181--194. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kay, A. C. 1977. Microelectronics and the personal computer. Sci. Amer. 237, 3, 230--244.Google Scholar
- Kay, A. C. and Goldberg, A. 1977. Personal dynamic media. Comput. 10, 3, 31--41. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kerns, T. 1996. Should we use cooperative learning in college chemistry. J. College Sci. Teach. 25, 6, 435--438.Google Scholar
- Kirshner, D. and Whitson, J., eds. 1997. Situated Cognition: Social, Semiotic, and Psychological Perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
- Lave, J. and Wenger. 1990. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Practice. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Magin, D. J., Churches, A. E., and Reizes, J. A. 1986. Design and experimentation in undergraduate mechanical engineering. In Proceedings of a Conference on Teaching Engineering Designers (Sydney, Australia), 96--100.Google Scholar
- Marshall, J. A. and Young, E. S. 2006. Preservice teachers' theory development in physical and simulated environments. J. Res. Sci. Teach. To appear.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ma, J. and Nickerson, J. V. 2006. Hands-On, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Comput. Surv. 38, 3, 1--24. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mayer, R. E. 2001. Multi-Media Learning. Cambridge University Press, New York. Google ScholarDigital Library
- McDonough, E. F., Kahn, K. B., and Barczak, G. 2001. An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and colocated new product development teams. J. Product Innov. Manage. 18, 2, 110--120.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nedic, Z., Machotka, J., and Nafalski, A. 2003. Remote laboratories versus virtual and real laboratories. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Frontiers in Education Conference (Boulder, CO Nov.).Google Scholar
- Nickerson, J. V., Corter, J. E., Esche, S. K., and Chassapis, C. 2007. A model for evaluating the effectiveness of remote engineering laboratories and simulations in education. Comput. and Edu. 49, 3, 708--725. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ogot, M., Elliott, G., and Glumac, N. 2003. An assessment of in-person and remotely operated laboratories. J. Eng. Edu. 92, 1, 57--62.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Olson, G. M. and Olson, J. S. 2000. Distance matters. Hum. Comput. Interact. 15, 2-3, 139--178. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pea, R. D. 1994. Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications. J. Learn. Sci. 3, 3, 283--298.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pea, R. D. 1993. Learning scientific concepts through material and social activities: Conversational analysis meets conceptual change. Edu. Psychol. 28, 3, 265--277.Google Scholar
- Pedhazur, E. J. 1982. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research, 2nd ed. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
- Reiner, M., Pea, R. D., and Shulman, D. J. 1995. Impact of simulator-based instruction on diagramming in geometrical optics by introductory physics students. J. Sci. Edu. Technol. 4, 3, 199--226.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Roth, W.-M., Woszczyna, C., and Smith, G. 1998. Affordances and constraints of computers in science education. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 33, 9, 995--1017.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Russell, D. W., Lucas, K. B., and Mcrobbie, C. J. 2004. Role of the microcomputer-based laboratory display in supporting the construction of new understandings in thermal physics. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 41, 2, 165--185.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schmidt, J. B., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., and Massey, A. P. 2001. New product development decision-making effectivness: Comparing individuals, face-to-face teams, and virtual teams. Decision Sci. 32, 6, 575--600.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schwartz, D. L. and Black, J. B. 1996. Shuttling between depictive models and abstract rules: Induction and fallback. Cog. Sci. 20, 457--497.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Scanlon, E., Colwell, C., Cooper, M., and Paolo, T. D. 2004. Remote experiments, re-versioning and re-thinking science learning. Comput. Edu. 43, 1--2, 153--163. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sicker, D. C., Lookabaugh, T., Santos, J., and Barnes, F. 2005. Assessing the effectiveness of remote networking laboratories. In Proceedings of the 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (Boulder, CO), 7--12.Google Scholar
- Slavin, R. E. 1996. Research for the future: Research on cooperative learning and acheivement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemp. Edu. Psy. 21, 1, 43--69.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sonnenwald, D. H., Whitton, M. C., and Maglaughlin, K. L. 2003. Evaluating a scientific collaboratory: Results of a controlled experiment. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 10, 2, 150--176. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stamovlasis, D., Dimos, A., and Tsaparlis, G. 2006. A study of group interaction processes in learning lower secondary physics. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 43, 6, 556--576.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Windschitl, M. and Andre, T. 1998. Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual change: The roles of constructivist instruction and student epistemological beliefs. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 35, 145--160.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Winn, W. 1993. A constructivist critique of the assumptions of instructional design. In Designing Environments for Constructive Learning, T. M. Duffy et al., eds. Springer, Berlin, 189--212.Google Scholar
- Zacharia, Z. and Anderson, O. R. 2003. The effects of an interactive computer-based simulation prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiment on students' conceptual understanding of physics. Amer. J. Phys. 71, 6, 618--629.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Constructing reality: A study of remote, hands-on, and simulated laboratories
Recommendations
Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review
Laboratory-based courses play a critical role in scientific education. Automation is changing the nature of these laboratories, and there is a long-running debate about the value of hands-on versus simulated laboratories. In addition, the introduction ...
Sharing Laboratories across Different Remote Laboratory Systems
ICALT '12: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Advanced Learning TechnologiesAn educational remote laboratory is a software and hardware tool that enables students to remotely access real equipment located in the university as if they were in a hands-on-lab session. In order to be able to increase the curricula of universities, ...
A remote laboratory environment for blended learning
PETRA '08: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive EnvironmentsIn this paper, a remote laboratory environment for blended learning is described. The main contributions are: a) the architecture proposed that facilitates the student-centered learning; b) an environment that improves the student's learning process; c) ...
Comments